More Evidence We Are Lacking A Strong Opposition Party

This is another in a series of my lamentations on this country not having a strong and credible opposition party.  Previously, I have derided the Democrats for not coming up with a viable foreign policy alternative, but they appear just as week on domestic policy issues.

I have made my disdain for Kelo fairly clear.  It has taken a while, but someone other than a major beneficiary of eminent domain (e.g. the NY Times, which got their new HQ building courtesy of an eminent domain condemnation) has tried to defend it.  The defender is Nancy Pelosi, and boy has it become clear why we don't have a stronger opposition party in this country.  The Democrats have chosen this mental midget as their Congressional leader?  Check out this interview, via NRO:


"Q: Later this
morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with
John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent
domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are
going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal
funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision
on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds
of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi: As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and
anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of
office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to
that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that
whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court,
and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions,
it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold
funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q: Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases
that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question
poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but
withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not
just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi: Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to
say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the
Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme
Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church --
powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the
Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation
that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision
of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And
I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in

Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants
to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a
constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars
of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

(emphasis added)

This is just crazy.  I guess as a Kelo-hater, I should be happy in this case that the opposition is so weak, but my god it is a depressing revelation for the future on other issues.


  1. Scott:

    Well if Dems go the way of the Whigs, Republicans, centrist Independents and conservative Dems will be able to split the difference to form two new parties. That wouldn't be a bad thing at all in my mind.

  2. Ron:

    I wonder if Ms. Pelosi knows what eminent domain is or even how the Supreme Court has ruled. Then again, I guess as long as they aren't targeting churches for purchase. After all, it's almost as if God has spoken!

  3. Jay:

    I seem to recall seeing an analysis yesterday of how she is connected to/the beneficiary of an eminent domain scheme much like the one that makes the Times come out on the wrong side. I forget where, and I didn't follow every twist and turn in detail, but it was kind of intriguing. IIRC someone who funds Dems heavily in a private taking scheme in San Fran or such.

  4. Jake:

    If only there was a way to make the Libertarian Party a viable contender. I think mandating economcis in High School education would help, but I hate such sweeping education generalizations in the first place. Someone should start a Common Sense Party. Enough rambling...

  5. Matt:

    Ms Pelosi definitely knows what eminent domain is. In fact, I take issue with our distinguished host's characterization of her as a non-beneficiary. She regularly accepts large contributions from ED-addicted developers. She may be an _indirect_ beneficiary, but there's no questioning that she is a beneficiary.

    See and for details.